Chrome 69 will keep Google Cookies when you tell it to delete all cookies - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/ctavan/status/1044282084020441088 <comment><USER2> Seriously don't know why anyone is surprised that a browser built by an ad- tech company pushes the user tracking tech of that company.

Just use Firefox and have done with it - there's been a series of these kinds of posts over the last couple of days with people suggesting insane workaround hacks instead of just changing their browser.

P.S. if you keep chrome because some websites only work properly there, maybe y'all should follow standards at work instead of targeting a proprietary browser like its 2001/IE6 again.

<comment> ux-app Dropping chrome is not enough. Switch to bing (Just as good as G), or ddg if you really want. Then ditch android which is the spy in your pocket. If you're installing G analytics for clients then choose an alternative (I'm open to suggestions here).

It's really time to disentangle ourselves from google. They've quietly and effectively insinuated themselves across the web. Enough is enough.

<comment><USER3> What's the alternative to Android though? Apple has its own well-documented issues, as well as a rather large price-tag. I just use my phone for maps and some chat services, don't need a very fancy phone. Even the iPhone 7 is listed at £449, which is already £150 more than I paid for my Sony Xperia.

I wish stuff like HP WebOS or Meego was still alive, but as far as I know, Apple and Google are the only serious players in town at the moment :-(

<comment><USER4> Android (the Android Open Source Project) itself is not the Problem. It's the lock-in ecosystem that Google tries to establish with the Google Services Framework, Play Store and the like. What is missing, is an open and privacy- friendly alternative to GSF. Without GSF we don't have efficient push notifications (Firebase Cloud Messaging), a geolocation provider, a maps API etc.

Personally, I have been using microG ([https://microg.org/](https://microg.org/)) instead of GSF on my phone for many years now. However, that is still just a partial solution. While it does its best to be privacy-friendly and does not have any integrated tracking / analytics like GSF, it still has to use Google's servers for push notifications, thus tracking is still possible to some degree.

<comment><USER5> how is the product quality of microG? if a user is happy with GSF, will they be disappointed with microG?

<comment><USER4> microG is certainly not perfect and I wouldn't recommend it to the average user. Expect some things to not work or even certain apps to crash. It's a techie-solution for people who value their privacy highly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Another confirmation that engineers and product developers are no longer in control at Google.

Engineering and product first is how Google won the game initially, very easy to forget that when the money rolls in massively and the power structures move away from those driving forces.

Microsoft already went through this engineering/product growth to bizdev/marketing control to stagnation and is already in the return to engineering/product first phase. Basically their own Ballmer era is what Google is entering.

Bizdev + marketing are hugely important, but the products and engineering need to be the focus. It is much easier to bizdev and market a product and engineering led system/focus, though success through this is always forgotten when massive success comes around because engineering/research and development are hard to quantify and put metrics to which the power structures move away from.

Let's hope there are factions of engineering/product focused people in Google that can gain back control.

<comment><USER7> That feels like whitewashing part of the blame that applies to engineers and product developers. We don't get to say "oh it's those pesky money people, how dare they", while drawing a salary from the same pockets.

<comment><USER8> They disagree with the direction the company is going so they ... quit? They apply at some other company comparable to Google, uproot their family, move across country, and get a job somewhere else?

I don't blame the engineers one bit. I certainly don't expect the poor engineer that had to implement the cookie changes to refuse and quit his job over it.

<comment><USER9> Yes.

That's how values work. You VALUE them, meaning—objectively—you are willing to make some sacrifice for them.

Same goes for working for a predatory financial institution, a manufacturer who makes dangerous products, or for that matter, a company with a toxic culture.

How is this different from working for a tobacco company? Decades ago we had the same conversation about people who "were just following orders."

If you aren't able to change your organization, change organizations. If not, fine, but you cannot escape having proven that you don't actually value consumer privacy or what-have-you more than your hot supper. You just consider it a nice ideal to bandy about in conversation.

Summary: Those who are complicit certainly deserve their share of the blame. At the very least, you can say of them, "they value money more than privacy."

If you don't think so, maybe YOU don't value these things that much, which is why you won't hold anyone else accountable for them.

<comment><USER9> One more thing (apologies):

If you take the engineer off the hook because "they can't change things," you know what inevitably happens? You discover that the product and eng managers can't change things either. In theory, maybe, but in practice they are given accountability for revenue and growth targets, so what choice do they have?

Let's move up the ladder. Can we blame the directors and ELT. No, the markets hold them accountable for growth, and every company plays dirty, so what choice do THEY have?

Pretty soon everyone is shrugging, and now you understand how SYSTEMIC problems persist: Nobody is held personally accountable because no one person can make change without sacrifice, and sometimes not even then, it would take mass walkouts or protests , and each person is but a drop in the bucket.

This mechanism of not holding people accountable because they don't have sufficient authority or power to make unilateral change is how all systemic injustices persist. Racism, sexism, class distinctions, corruption in government, predatory corporations, all of them.

They persist because individuals say, "What can I do? Nothing, so I might as well go along with it." And if everyone accepts this...

The next thing you know, they're writing software to assist opressive regimes oppress their citizens.

<comment><USER10> Putting yourself in a weaker position due to your views doesn't scale and thus doesn't work. For one hero there are ten conformists at the same level of skill, waiting for him/her to leave. While it's brave, it is also pointless. The problem as you state it can be solved only by explicit consensus, being it a law or just a manifesto. Modern privacy has no professional and power-y organization under it, except for few self-distanced like GNU, FSF, etc. Moreover, by staying at google engineers who have an opinion probably can influence much more than those who left.

<comment><USER11> you can use the same argument to tell people not to vote. it's not a good one.

<comment><USER10> Not a good one use or argument itself?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Are they trying to promote Firefox or something? Chrome seems to be trying quite hard to annoy people enough to actually uninstall it.

<comment><USER13> Worked for me. Switched to FF because I just can't trust Chrome anymore. FF feels like a breath of fresh air.

<comment> ux-app Yup, same. Switched to ff and bing. Was surprisingly frictionless. Next week I'll be off gmail too. Up yours google. The week after, I'm getting rid of my android phone.

I'm a high school IT teacher and have some influence over hundreds of students each year. I've already started to sprinkle in some discussion about privacy and will be sure to inform my students about the issues. Of course I won't brow beat my students, but i will encourage them to make informed decisions.

In aggregate, over time this kind of behaviour by google will hurt them. No such thing as too big to fail in tech.

<comment><USER14> What will you replace gmail with?

<comment><USER15> I use FastMail with my own domain. I used to use Google Apps before it.

But before switching email services, do yourself a favor and ditch webmail interfaces first. Pick up a desktop/native email client and switch to IMAP / SMTP.

On MacOS a solid option for us power users is MailMate ([https://freron.com/](https://freron.com/)) ... markdown composer, GMail shortcuts, useful bundles, fast, uncluttered, it's basically what I wanted Thunderbird to be. Development on Thunderbird is apparently ongoing too and they just released version 60. Apparently Web Extensions are in the works too.

Transitioning to a native client is painful at first, but it's worth it.

GMail's web interface is a piece of shit lately anyway.

<comment><USER16> > markdown composer..

What kind of emails need markdown composing?

<comment><USER15> It's awesome for emails containing snippets of code, code with syntax highlighting being my use case.

And for formatting in general, the resulting email (composed in MailMate) will be very friendly to clients that prefer to display emails as plain text, since the text version is going to be very clean.

There's also a browser extension working with GMail's web interface too, but it doesn't work as well as MailMate: [https://markdown- here.com/](https://markdown-here.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Here's the PR where this message has been introduced: [https://chromium- review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/98...](https://chromium- review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/986287) ...but the related bug discussion is hidden....

The internal name for the feature is "DICE" (desktop identity consistency feature)

There is a build flag to disable the feature: ENABLE_DICE_SUPPORT

<comment><USER18> Well, at least in chromium you can disable it at run time as well: chrome://flags/#account-consistency

<comment><USER19> IIRC that flag is broken in canary 71

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The list of what's left after you "Clear all cookies": [https://twitter.com/ctavan/status/1044286636991877120](https://twitter.com/ctavan/status/1044286636991877120)

Even YouTube's stuff are left, that's crazy.

</comment><comment><USER21> News like this, and the "forced" sign-in just illustrates to me how desperate Google has become to "own all your data".

I lost all trust in public cloud after Snowden, but somehow remained convinced that yes, Google reads my email, but that's about it. I migrated everything but email to a selfhosted solution, and simplified things a lot. Recently i've also migrated mail away from Google.

These past years have sadly proven (to me) i was right. What makes me even more sad is that the common user has very few options to avoid it. To the best of my knowledge, Apple doesn't track you, neither on Mac OS or iOS, but there's a steep price, one that most consumers are not ready to pay. Linux may be ready for the desktop, but it's still a long way away from my parents installing it.

</comment><comment><USER22> Why are we assuming maliciousness?

My best guess that Chrome works this way would be due to combining the sign-in cookies with the general cookies of the browser (e.g. 1 cookie store instead of 2).

So when you log in to Google, you log in to Chrome - and vice versa. For non- technical users this is a convenience feature, though for many it does come with privacy concerns.

Judging by the comments re cookie clearing, there is some part of the login still separate from that, but as it re-establishes itself the cookies come back and you stay logged-in to Google.

Is this perhaps preventable by having a "Guest" Chrome account? What happens then?

<comment><USER23> > Why are we assuming maliciousness?

Because Google has been screwing up so much, by this point they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

> My best guess that Chrome works this way would be due to combining the sign- > in cookies with the general cookies of the browser

Why keep Youtube cookies, then? [https://twitter.com/ctavan/status/1044286636991877120](https://twitter.com/ctavan/status/1044286636991877120)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Title of the post is not right, the author issued a (technically important) correction[1]:

> Brief correction: Cookies seem to get removed and re-created immediately. At > least the cookie content and creation date seems to change. Nonetheless: > After hitting the "remove all" button you still don't end up with an empty > cookie jar.

[1]: [https://twitter.com/ctavan/status/1044543955457773573](https://twitter.com/ctavan/status/1044543955457773573)

</comment><comment><USER25> Just got the update at work, and miraculously my uBlock adblocking extension was removed and DuckDuckGo as the default search engine replaced with Google. Looks like all my customizations were replaced by defaults. Now I'm wondering whether it was our IT's fault or due to Google actions.

<comment><USER26> This can happen if somehow sync got enabled when you signed in.

Sync kicked in, noticed a mismatch between your current setup and the one you had set up many years ago while testing the "sign into chrome" process and set your setting to the one in the cloud.

It's caught me out a couple of times too.

<comment><USER25> Sync is disabled by Corporate IT by default. Not suggesting any malevolence, just wanted to check whether anyone else experienced a similar suspicious event as well.

<comment><USER27> Curious now about how exactly your Corporate IT team is disabling sync by default. Especially given the change as described. Possible to elaborate?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Isn't this an unsurprising, logical consequence of "signing into google"=="signing into chrome"? If you're still signed into Chrome you're going to get those cookies recreated by Chrome immediately.

Has anyone tested this behavior if you aren't signed in, or have disabled the google/chrome login equivalence?

<comment><USER29> Yes, seems like it's pretty much a technical restatement of how "signing into google"=="signing into chrome" works. It is interesting to see it in this light, however. It's easier to justify through UI ("It's just one Google service logging in to another") than it is when you look at it in a technical or historical light, of what being a browser used to mean.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> If the log-into chrome would just _reflect_ the login state into google's services, I think it would be much less controversal and actually useful.

Imagine little indicators that show which identity providers you are logged into, like Facebook, Google, Twitter, .... You could do this by passively reading the site cookies in an extension (are you allowed to do that nowadays in extensions?). Even better, if you are not logged into, say, Facebook, block third party cookies from their domains so it's harder for them to track you.

I think I have a good idea for a weekend project...

</comment><comment><USER31> Could this be only when you are logged-in to your account in chrome?

I.e.

"if you are logged-in to chrome, it won't delete google cookies because it need it for you to be logged-in to chrome (because of some UX excuse, like user confusion why it's logged-out from chrome).

If you are logged out of chrome, it will delete everything."

If it works this way, I would be willing to give them benefit of doubt, since there is reasonable UX reason to do it this way (given that logged-in to chrome now equals to logged-in to gmail). I personally would expect that deleting cookies will not log me out of chrome.

<comment><USER32> This could have been a valid point, but not since they started automatically logging you in in the browser when you log in to gmail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I posted about this last month here and also in Google Chrome forums but no one seemed to care. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17853092](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17853092)

<comment><USER34> That link leads to me an empty page, is the URL correct?

<comment><USER35> The submission is marked as [dead] you need to change your settings to see it (enable showdead).

<comment><USER20> Post was:

> Latest version of Chrome doesn't remove Google cookies when you clear > browsing data. I feel like Google is adding super cookies to track users > even after clearing browser data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> So all cookies are equal, but some are more equal than others?

Privacy implications aside, and boy are they some big ones, Google should be worried about this leading to accusations of abusing the monopoly power of their browser.

</comment><comment><USER37> What about chromium? Can anybody confirm if it has the same problem? (I know it shouldn't, but come on, who trusts google?)

<comment><USER38> It still does a lot of callbacks to Google. the solution here is definitely switch to Firefox, but if you're really stuck on Chrome you could try Ungoogled chrome [1].

[1] [https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled- chromium](https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> It's time for antitrust action. This is just too excessive.

<comment><USER40> sorry, disagree. very very easy to switch browsers.

<comment><USER39> We're not talking about the case of individual users. If you have a monopoly position in one market, you cannot unfairly use it to give you an advantage in another market.

Imagine if Google started delisting sites with Facebook Partner Network ads on them...

The ease of switching is completely irrelevant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I just switched to Edge and it looks great. One of the reasons I had used Chrome and had recommended all my customers to use Chrome was the ability to print to PDF, which Firefox did not have (not sure if it does now). Edge does and will be recommending all my clients to try out Egde.

<comment><USER42> _the ability to print to PDF_

All browser have had the ability to do that, for many years now, if you install a PDF printer driver. Adobe was the first with a commercial one, but I'm sure there are free ones now.

<comment><USER43> No idea what GP's role is, but given corporate environments, installing a PDF printer driver isn't always a quick process. This is particularly true if they're working with customers from many different companies, each with their own IT considerations.

Recommending Chrome is an easy enough way to get that functionality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Wondering how long till the community forks Chromium and makes a foundation for a reasonable Chromium fork. I'm more of a Firefox kinda guy, but I mean it seems like the only way that users will regain control over their browser. I know Vivaldi is based off at least parts of Chromium but I don't think it's fully open source yet and it's not (at least last I checked) simple enough to install on Linux (I can't just apt-get install it effortlessly like I can Chromium for example).

</comment><comment><USER45> I'm counting the seconds to the google press release or blog post that says it was confusing for users that they were suddenly signed out of gmail after they deleted all cookies.

</comment><comment><USER46> Can Google cookies be deleted ? This seems to have gone too far

<comment><USER33> Nope, Even if you go to Settings -> cookies then delete the cookies one by one. The cookies just come back magically. I completely stopped using Chrome for this reason.

<comment><USER47> Wow, that is pretty shitty. Given the number of times over the years that I've had to wipe all Google cookies and site data to fix issues with offline mode in Google Docs, this does not bode well for being able to use Chrome successfully to access even Google's own services in future.

<comment><USER48> yes, you can. google cookies are being rewritten until you logout. once out, you can remove the cookies. once you re-login, the cookies come back. basically they've added a step: logout before cookie removal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> That was it for me. I hit the uninstall button. Enough!

</comment><comment><USER50> I can't help to think that the new Google's CEO is not setting the right standards and values for the company. Google's been on a roll recently with privacy violations and related "doing evil" news. Someone on top must be encouraging it, or at least not hold people accountable.

</comment><comment><USER51> You have to be able to trust your tools.

Imagine if "rm" just decided to occasionally set aside files instead of removing them. The "star" in "rm star" means "remove everything", not "remove, asterisk" where at the bottom of the page the asterisk lists exceptions like some kind of marketing weasel. Sheesh.

<comment><USER52> `rm *` doesn't remove files starting with `.` (on most shells)...

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Brave browser ([https://brave.com/](https://brave.com/)) is privacy focused (built-in Tor Tabs, for example) and uses Chromium on the backend (with the Google parts stripped).

<comment><USER54> It's ad replacement scheme is unethical. It forces publishers to only partner with them and not multiple competing companies, atleast with Chrome publishers can partner with other networks then Google. I won't root for it.

We want competition.

</comment></comment><comment> m-p-3 Glad I switched back to Firefox when Quantum came out.

Now I kinda hope Mozilla will make an official addon like Facebook Container but for Google services. We're being tracked too much, and it's time to fight back and making it easy to the average user to do it is the only way to change that.

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/facebook- cont...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/facebook-container/)

</comment><comment><USER55> Anyone have time to create a plugin mapping site?

That was the only hangup I had to move over to Firefox.

Most things work on Firefox, or there's a similar plugin.

Still looking for a few:

* Flix Assist - Chrome Web Store || [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/flix-assist/jeeccn...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/flix-assist/jeeccngbdajjccceabkpadjmbakhdbnp)

* WhatFont - Chrome Web Store || [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/whatfont/jabopobgc...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/whatfont/jabopobgcpjmedljpbcaablpmlmfcogm)

And... Lighthouse.

A few of the plugins I used on Chrome don't quite have perfect matches...

* Create Link - Chrome Web Store || [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/create-link/gcmghd...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/create-link/gcmghdmnkfdbncmnmlkkglmnnhagajbm) \-- haven't found a Firefox addon that lets me copy URL + Title via keyboard shortcut.

Also looking for a way to change Firefox's default Apple + Shift + 5 to not try and take a Firefox screenshot, as Apple + Shift + 5 is my Skitch shortcut.

</comment><comment><USER56> Is there any reason to believe Google would _not_ be tracking Chrome installations even without persistent cookies? Does this actually make any difference?

</comment><comment><USER57> I Uninstalled Chrome a few days ago, more due to the fact I don't need it. Safari has been my default for a long time, specially due to the fact I can use 1Blocker across the phone, iPad and my Mac. FF's Containers has replaced Chrome's profile features for me. Infact I have gone ahead and made a seperate container for Google and defaulted google domains to it, just like what the FaceBook container does.

<comment><USER58> I really wish I could be back on Safari to sync between all my devices. Pity they killed their Windows version, a lot of us don't have a choice of OS at work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Surprised about all the fuzz. The good part about Chrome is one may create many sessions/users in Chrome. So, I use one dedicated Chrome user to access Google services and use another not logged into Google user in a different session for everything else. There is really no problem if one knows how to use Chrome.

Really good part is that it's possible to create a shortcut to a site/service from a particular user session in Chrome and launch that shortcut as a headless standalone window that looks like Windows native app, not a browser. The shortcut is connected to the user session it was created from. So, for example, I have Gmail icon on my desktop and taskbar that launches a dedicated window to access mail without even starting Chrome browser session for Google user. Simultaneously I have Chrome opened with another, not Google, user/session. Problem solved--check mail, calendar, whatever in one sandboxed environment and browse the web in another one.

</comment><comment><USER60> Somehow this reminds me of the time when Google started to unify their login experience (one login for all Google services).

That was the time I started actively avoiding Google services, and I still do. This incident is a good reminder of why I do so.

</comment><comment><USER54> Everyone developing for the web platform should keep in mind if their business actually supports their competitor.

Every time a user clears their cookies your site will be at a disadvantage if your business depends on ads or account login, not Google.

</comment><comment><USER61> Chrome 69 on Mac puts Close/Minimise/Maximise buttons in an additional bar when in fullscreen mode. It's super irritating to see an additional bar when you move mouse to top of screen.

I have downgraded to Chrome 68 and disabled auto updates.

[https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/D0dB6j...](https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/D0dB6jJ_Lwo;context- place=topicsearchin/chrome/category$3Agive-feature-feedback-and- suggestions%7Csort:relevance%7Cspell:false)

<comment><USER62> Disabling updates is really bad idea. Maybe it is still possible to switch back to old functionality using chrome://flags ?

<comment><USER61> I tried looking for config options but couldn't find any. I am just a version behind. Will resume auto updates when they fix this annoying behaviour.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> I had to leave Firefox for Chrome at the office because Meet and Hangouts; I missed this: [https://blog.mozilla.org/webrtc/firefox-is-now-supported- by-...](https://blog.mozilla.org/webrtc/firefox-is-now-supported-by-google- hangouts-and-meet/)

Since Firefox 60 you don't need Chrome for that, so I'm back to Firefox. Firefox isn't perfect, and that was OK because there was always Chrome. Now it starts to feel like it is Firefox or nothing, which isn't ideal.

</comment><comment><USER64> Wow,more bad news on the privacy front for Chrome users. I hate to beat a dead horse, but I'm glad I switched back to FF. I'm absolutely loving the multi- account container feature.

</comment><comment><USER65> I have been a Firefox user for years. I have realized that in spite of it being more open, it is absolutely necessary to keep up to date with what Mozilla is up to. E.g. came across this today - [https://blog.ungleich.ch/en- us/cms/blog/2018/08/04/mozillas-...](https://blog.ungleich.ch/en- us/cms/blog/2018/08/04/mozillas-new-dns-resolution-is-dangerous/)

</comment><comment><USER66> If an organisation gets to a certain size, is it inevitable that it will eventually turn bad and disregard it's end-users' interests?

Is this just the nature of the beast?

<comment><USER67> You are getting it backwards. Google regards its end-users interests alright. You are just misunderstanding who the end-users are.

<comment><USER66> Clients vs. livestock maybe ..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> I suspect that they use metrics for making decisions and the total number of users is growing. Those who understand and care for privacy are only a small portion of the user base and don't play a role in metrics. And if they play a role in metrics, they are probably accounted as leeches because they use google products but don't pay back because they block ads. Therefore a totally useless user base... maybe.

</comment><comment><USER69> Updated tweets indicate it deletes the cookies then immediately creates new ones? This is probably related to that login-state sync between the browser and Google account previously discussed; it'd be really weird to me if deleting my cookies logged me out of my browser account, but that means it's also really weird if it logs me out of Gmail if I'm still in my Google account in the browser itself.

</comment><comment><USER70> After all that I have some trust issues. Btw. how should I be sure that Chrome wouldn't copy my documents from my drive and send them to Google?

</comment><comment><USER71> But for an SEO like me, I will really get a hard time dropping google as it still control almost the powerful SERPFs in the net. Will still find better ways and start re-evaluating things as an alternative, anyone here with suggestion will be very much welcome and appreciated. cheeky moves. Might as well just use it doing business related things and use firefox as personal browser.

</comment><comment><USER72> Yesterday I started moving to FastMail, today switched to Firefox, what tomorrow will bring?

Btw, can someone recommend a good alternative to Google Maps API?

<comment><USER73> I switched to FF ~1 year ago because I found the performance to be better. But Google's trend is making me consider switching back to an iPhone...

<comment><USER74> I'm in the same boat. Just switched away from Gmail and Chrome. Love my Pixel 2 XL for its astonishing camera, but very seriously considering a switch to the iPhone.

<comment><USER75> In this case, I can assure you that iPhone8Plus/iPhoneX and successors camera is freaking awesome. Awesome enough to make me start doing photos for pleasure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> I'm beginning to think that all the craziness surrounding the Bad Things (TM) Chrome is doing, is being done surreptitiously as a warning from engineering in Google to GTFO...

Given how google is embracing and building for totalitarian markets, such as China, as are its peers in the tech space - I think this is maybe a way to warn people to get the hell away from Google's products.

</comment><comment><USER77> Technically, it does remove the cookies. And then instantly you get new ones, from being logged in to your G account at the browser level.

<comment><USER78> This is worse than not removing them as your bandwith cap would drain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> Even for someone who likes Google, this is insane.

</comment><comment><USER80> Remember when every developer was a advocate of Google Chrome?

The outrage begins but only for .000001% of users. Google could not care less.

I haven't switched like most people here say they have, I have made an effort to install alternatives and use them. A better way to protest is to begin supporting Firefox in other ways such as writing your web apps and extensions.

</comment><comment><USER81> Well, that was finally evil enough for me to switch from Chrome to Vivaldi.

This is starting to look like early-00s Internet Explorer all over again, just with a different BigCorp behind the wheel.

Still need to buy a few things to make self-hosting email and my personal site practical, but hopefully that'll all be set up in a few weeks as well. Bye Google.

</comment><comment><USER82> It be some background process or chrome extension communicating with google services. Because that would explain the automatic regeneration of cookies since cookie creation is automatic.

And no, even this won't stop me using Chrome. You know what will? If I can identify it's causing BSOD on my system, like I've seen 2 yesterday.

<comment><USER83> BSOD can also be caused by bad graphics drivers. It's a major problem for browsers on Linux, so they don't enable hardware accelerated video playback by default. Firefox even used to remove the code from Linux builds but I think that they include it now.

<comment><USER82> That's what I'm thinking as well, it happened during WebGL development with the same symptoms both time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> Waiting for APF's response, she usually provides some insight, here's an example from the recent Chrome Sign-in changes [https://twitter.com/__apf__/status/1044109217903198210?s=21](https://twitter.com/__apf__/status/1044109217903198210?s=21)

</comment><comment><USER85> not seeing it here, but its worth a mention for those ready to jump ship. Iridium [https://iridiumbrowser.de/](https://iridiumbrowser.de/) is a fork of Chromium that seeks to deprecate the absurdities Google seems racing to introduce into chrome.

</comment><comment><USER86> OK that's enough, I had been doing a slow transition but this is just a step too far, qutebrowser is now my main browser... I just want a decent browser engine with a front-end that respects me, qute gets me chromium without the increasingly bullshit front end user "features".

</comment><comment><USER87> Non-Twitter writeup: [https://news.softpedia.com/news/chrome-69-does-not- delete-go...](https://news.softpedia.com/news/chrome-69-does-not-delete- google-cookies-when-clearing-all-website-data-522884.shtml)

</comment><comment><USER88> That does it for me. I have tried the latest FireFox version and it is faster, for the first time. I've been reluctant to switch but these last updates hit the nail everywhere. The tabs are worse. Chrome is slowish as hell and the intrusion is insane.

Job well done chrome.

</comment><comment><USER89> This is where you can contact Google about this violation [https://support.google.com/policies/troubleshooter/7575787](https://support.google.com/policies/troubleshooter/7575787)

</comment><comment><USER90> Coincidentaly I switched from Google services a week before this Chrome fiasco. I am happy with the switch for services, but was hard to accept laggy firefox ui on mac or safari without some plugins. This made it 100% easier.

<comment><USER91> > laggy firefox ui on mac

Really? I've been using it for years and I haven't felt a problem. But this could be a bug, and it'd be a good idea to report it.

<comment><USER92> It's really weird, it happens on my "new" 2016 MBP and a work machine. But I can't tell why I'm getting slowdowns.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> It's like some people at Google realize that the company's image is messed up beyond repair. So they decided they might as well go full-on evil and make as much money as they can before the party's over.

</comment><comment><USER94> I wanna switch go Firefox so badly. But I use Linux, MacOS, and Windows and Firefox still does not support keychain on MacOS. I'm not gonna input my master password every time I open up my browser.

<comment><USER95> Or use a good cross-platform (Linux included) open-source password manager. For example: [https://bitwarden.com](https://bitwarden.com) ;)

<comment><USER94> Does Firefox offer integration with this for the master password? How does this work exactly on iOS?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER96> I think this is required for my-activity to work \- [https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity](https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity)

<comment><USER97> If I build a service that needs a cookie to persist in the event of a user purging their cookies I don't think Google would accept that and just not delete it. The same is true for Google. If a user purges their cookies there shouldn't be any set afterwards.

 _However..._ what's probably happening here is that the cookie _is_ being deleted but then created again immediately afterwards because something in the user's browser is connected to a Google server and that makes a new cookie if it detects the old one has gone away. The message in the tweet is informing the user that will happen. Arguably that's a reasonably useful notification - it stops the user mistakenly believing purging their cookies will log them out.

EDIT: Or, more likely, Google are actually storing the user's logged in state in localstorage or something, so clearing cookies won't log you out _because there isn 't a cookie_.

<comment><USER98> Agree, in the "Clear browsing data" there's a clear message. Fine.

However in chrome://settings/siteData?search=cookies there's just a "Remove all" button which in fact doesn't remove all cookies. See: [https://twitter.com/ctavan/status/1044517442993737729](https://twitter.com/ctavan/status/1044517442993737729)

<comment><USER33> Forget about the 'remove all' button. Clicking the huge delete button with 'trash' icon that is supposed to delete the cookie one by one just hides the entry and then every Google Cookie is back when you refresh the page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> Firefox on Mac can kill the battery and be a performance hog so far simply disabling auto-update might solve, some cases if you use FirefoxDeveloperEdition.

</comment><comment><USER100> Chrome 69, the The Google Chrome that Sucks and F*&#s

</comment><comment><USER101> Next up: Connecting to third party google ad sites that have been blocked by an addon that cancels a chrome.webRequest.onBeforeRequest.

</comment><comment><USER102> Keep in mind that Google dropped the motto "Don't be evil." So this change is in compliance with Google ethics now.

<comment><USER103> [https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of- conduct.html](https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html)

No they didn't. It's right at the bottom here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> It seems to me that the recent cosmetic changes to Chrome were a sleight of hand. As many people have pointed out here, there has been a major shift in Google's attitude towards its users and the web as a whole.

I think we are looking at the public face of something significant to have happened in Google search (and AI) and this attempt to start plugging all the gaps in our browsing habits is so that Google have as good as 95-100% understanding of human habits.

Foil hats on everybody :)

</comment><comment><USER105> How has it been this long and no one pointed out the obvious joke here:

Chrome 69 - Fucking users right in the face

</comment><comment><USER106> Sounds like Chrome 69 really sucks. Would kick out of laptop for not deleting cookies.

<comment><USER48> i found that on my machines Chrome 69 is one of the fastest and consumes the least amount of ram of all Chrome releases so far. on mac the difference between firefox and chrome is night and day for both speed and memory consumption, unfortunately. even safari 12 fares better than firefox in this regard.

<comment><USER107> aer you saying chrome or ff uses less?

<comment><USER48> chrome 69 on macos using latest 15 inch macbook. much faster than chrome 68, and in a different league than firefox 62. different story on windows thou.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER108> How long until version has the feature that when you install it loads a kernal driver such that when you close it, it runs in the background copying keystrokes and screen shots and uploading them? I'd love to hear how they'd sell that, maybe offering to pay for your internet connection?

<comment><USER109> Like Microsoft did with their windows 10 technical preview?

Or like Microsoft still does with machines with handwriting / touchscreens?

[https://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-touch-security- wai...](https://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-touch-security- waitlist.dat,37828.html)

<comment><USER108> Yeah, its interesting to see these companies move in this direction, must tell you that their profit margins are tightening and therefore must provide more value by increasing their surveillance levels.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> ur-whale One thing that really surprises me with Google is how some of the old timers there (who very likely aren't constrained by the "I have o make a living" at this point) can still agree to continue working there when they witness what the culture has become.

</comment><comment><USER110> Inaccurate headline — according to later messages it _does_ delete the Google cookies, but the auto sign in feature (discussed earlier) recreates them, as it obviously must. I don't think an _additional_ wave of hysterical dismay is justified here.

<comment><USER111> "When you sign into Gmail, you also sign into Chrome." How does this feature "obviously" imply that Chrome must recreate tracking cookies? My expetation would be that, after deleting all cookies, I'm signed into the browser but not Gmail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER112> I wonder if it's still going to wipe out my password storage...

<comment><USER113> 1Password now has a browser extension that runs the entire application in browser, which means you can use a dedicated password manager across all operating systems with a proper security model. Check out the 1Password X extension.

</comment></comment><comment><USER114> This is when Google starts to underestimate users and treat them as dumb zombies.

It is their new game theory play:

1/ Start making people think you are super ethical (don't be evil)

2/ Gain traction

3/ Change rules and take advantage of inertia. People are lazy to change browsers.

<comment><USER115> You will see that there will be exactly zero backlash outside of hacker news.

They do not need their first adopters anymore.

<comment><USER116> There are already a number of media outlets picking up these stories, including gizmoto and business insider. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Just takes time to propagate outward.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER117> Just want to chime in here, if you're ok deciding that Google engineers should be quitting their jobs, you should be fine deleting any Google services you're still a part of.

</comment><comment><USER118> prbly 99% of ppl saying they're done with Google and Chrome on the comment are posting the same comment from Chrome

</comment><comment><USER119> Annnnnd I'm moving to brave.

</comment><comment><USER120> I'll take a look at Firefox.

</comment><comment><USER121> power corrupts, absolute ... yada yada ... cliches etc.

I am trying to stick to duck duck go and a safari/firefox combo. The browsers are fine. But, its hard to give up that !g search. I worked in the ad-tech space in the past. Google's tech is amazing, but, the price we pay for all this free stuff ... scary/creepy.

</comment><comment><USER122> _Be as evil as possible._

</comment><comment><USER123> I've seen very few people questioning Pichai as Tim Cook gets questioned. Why does he get a free pass?

</comment><comment><USER124> It's time to switch:

duckduckgo.com qwant.com

<comment><USER125> Let's not perpetuate the idea that Google is primarily a web search engine.

It hasn't been ever since Gmail, Google Calendar, Chrome and Android took off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER126> Stoped trusting google years ago, I switched from chrome to firefox and from google to duckduckgo.

</comment><comment><USER127> Is Google indictable (sueable) for that massive abuse under EU law?

</comment><comment><USER128> Goodbye Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER129> So it's doing a 69 with your privacy

</comment><comment><USER130> That is so bad. Oh my god.

</comment><comment><USER131> I recommend that anyone that has a problem with this in Europe file a GDPR complaint, and if you're in the US file a complaint with your attorney general. Some states' attornies general are looking for new ways to come down on Google, and this is a good start. If you have a setting to delete all cookies and it doesn't do that, that's against the law in some places.

<comment><USER132> How can GDPR apply to processes running locally on your machine?

At best, you can claim misleading advertising (which, is often handled by the fair trade commission or something similar, and often has to show damages before they can award anything).

<comment><USER98> I recommend this read: [https://blog.lukaszolejnik.com/am-i-logged-in-or-not- gdpr-ca...](https://blog.lukaszolejnik.com/am-i-logged-in-or-not-gdpr-case- study)

<comment><USER115> Your url does not work for me (404), this one does: [https://blog.lukaszolejnik.com/am-i-logged-in-or-not-gdpr- ca...](https://blog.lukaszolejnik.com/am-i-logged-in-or-not-gdpr-case-study- on-the-example-of-chrome-browser-change/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER133> "Oh you want to take a moral stand? Ok, the door is that way. We've just successfully lobbied for a few hundred more H1B's that will do anything we tell them"

<comment><USER134> "OK, no problem. Having Google on my resume means I can get a new job by the end of the week. I'll be sure to spread the word to users and developers alike that you're shady."

Let's not pretend that developers are powerless.

<comment><USER135> Unless you're an H1-B worker in which case it's gets much more complicated.

In my experience, most of the H1-B workers we have are very much Yes Men when it comes to doing what's asked of them. There are also cultural factors that come into play (e.g. never admitting ignorance on a topic, pleasing authority ) and .

<comment><USER136> H1-B is modern day slavery.

<comment><USER137> > H1-B is modern day slavery.

Eh, there's a power imbalance, but let's not go overboard.

They are offered a good job with good pay in another country. That means they have less power in negotiations, and may be deported, but they don't lose the money they earned, and it's not like they are being exiled to some foreign place, they are literally sent _home_.

Nobody's freedom is being taken away, and nobody's rights are being infringed (that I know of). It may not be morally acceptable depending on your point of view, but it's not _slavery_. Using that word here lessens how strong it is when used in other contexts, modern day (human trafficking) and historically (in America and eslewhere). We don't need that.

<comment><USER138> Being sent "home" when you've been living and working in another country for possibly years at a time doesn't really make it any better. You don't necessarily have a "home" wherever you came from.

<comment><USER137> > Being sent "home" when you've been living and working in another country for > possibly years at a time doesn't really make it any better.

Than _slavery_? Yes it does make it better. Much better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER139> What a cookie monster

</comment><comment><USER140> Considering how great Google are with regex, if your domain has anything Google in it, the cookies will probably be kept forever.

[http://www.google.com.somedomain.com](http://www.google.com.somedomain.com)

Looks a lot like "google.com" to me.

</comment><comment><USER141> So "clear browsing history" ( from all time ) really doesn't do what it says anymore? It doesn't even clear youtube history? Wowsa.

If google is this bad, I wonder what microsoft is really storing. I wonder what ISPs are storing. Also, this type of news doesn't give me much confidence when it comes to android either.

</comment><comment><USER142> Chrome highlights page keyword search result locations on the scroll bar, making the process of going through them very convenient. Firefox doesn't, and I couldn't find an extension that replicates the feature without extra manual effort.

Also, I find Firefox UI sluggish to use, relative to Chrome UI.

<comment><USER143> Well, I think you're paying for the better speed in chrome by sacrificing your privacy. Isn't that how this all works?

You consent to being tracked -> google gets money off of tracking you -> google can pay more engineers to work on chrome and make it faster -> you get more tied into chrome's performance quirks and ecosystem -> google gets more money by tracking you -> and so on...

If that sounds fair to you, then none of google's actions should bother you (probably). But for me personally, I switched over to Firefox a long time ago when I noticed that chrome was becoming increasingly user-hostile in design.

<comment><USER144> That actually sounds alright to me. But then I have everything in Google Drive, use G-Suitr for everything, buy Pixel phones and Chromebooks.

<comment><USER143> Hmm this is actually quite interesting...I don't know anyone IRL who has such deep integration with google services (apart from a few googlers of course).

You seem to be exactly the kind of user that would benefit from chrome's recent changes.

Is there anything google could do that could make you move away from their services? I can't imagine that any further anti-privacy actions by google would justify the cost of having to having to switch away from google's platforms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER145> But if you take the laptop outside, at full moon, and dance naked on the hillside around a fire, singing "SudOh how I want to be free, baby", you can overcome those settings. There is absolutely no reason to be enraged about the evil. There is even a tech-community valve installed, see instructions above.

</comment><comment><USER146> If you want to delete all cookies and site data, go to the "All cookies and site data" page in settings (chrome://settings/siteData) and click delete all. This also deletes Google cookies.

If you just want to browse without your existing cookies, I suggest opening a Guest Window. Just open the "Current User" menu and then "Open Guest window". That way you don't have to delete them at the end.

This is assuming you're in good faith trying to delete cookies, and just can't figure out how.

</comment><comment><USER147> Was using private browsing to log in to work gmail last night and found it really creepy how it remained logged in across private tabs.

Thought the whole point of a private tab was to completely isolate a browsing session, now you can never be certain your Google credentials are not being shared in these private sessions or even contaminate my non-private sessions.

Going to have to use another browser for my work sessions from now on.

<comment><USER148> > it remained logged in across private tabs.

If you mean "Incognito mode", then that's always happened. You need to close all tabs.

Exactly the same for FireFox's private browsing.

<comment><USER149> I don't use Chrome/Firefox but this surprises me, as well. The presence of a private browser window (anywhere) will prevent it from deleting cookies when you close this private browser window? That seems completely counterintuitive to me. When else, in any application, does the mere existence of an open, empty window completely change the behavior of a different window?

Safari's private tabs are each completely independent.

<comment><USER150> > The presence of a private browser window (anywhere) will prevent it from > deleting cookies when you close this private browser window?

Yes. This is not new behavior. And yes, it frustrates people that assume each window is a separate incognito instance. It's not, and hasn't ever been.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER151> Ha, this does not affect me personally, because of the way I use Chromium. Instead of calling it directly, I call a script which copies white-listed files and directories from the main Chromium data directory to a new data directory in /tmp, and then starts Chromium with the new data directory as data directory. After the directory in /tmp is deleted, there are sure to be no more cookies from that session.

<comment><USER152> Ha, this does not affect me personally, because of the way I do not use Chromium. Instead of calling it, I don't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER153> I like to think that Google is just not a conventional company and that they do everything to not become one. They creatively solve challenges (like how to keep certain cookies when a user presses "remove all") and this helps them provide unbiased, accurate, and free access to the world's information. People wanting to stay signed in can rely on them to do the right thing, even if in the near term the financial returns are not obvious. Their corporate structure is aligned with this objectivity: Serving their end users is at the heart of what they do. When people are logged off you can't really consider them your number one priority, because they don't either. Many Silicon Valley companies are under pressure to keep their earnings in line with short-term analyst's forecasts, Google is no exception here. But forced and universal log-in to Google's services optimizes for long-term return. Everybody hoped, but nobody believed, that Google would end up in this powerful position: Being able to strong-arm your power users, while still providing the best, most accurate, search results for people not logged in. In the end, this business tactic of universal and forced log-in makes the world, and by extension the internet, a better place. I know some people here raise privacy concerns, but this change clearly protects a user's privacy.</comment>


Control systems, yes, but we have to learn to crawl first - <AUTHOR> http://rachelbythebay.com/w/2019/11/11/dyn/ <comment><USER2> What a weird post. I actually just gave a talk at an internal conference about an early-days PID control loop for doing capacity management (and am generating gain parameters as I type). Is her argument that I shouldn't have built it because... the people who will benefit from it don't know how to use it? Or something? Not every problem can be solved by implementing a controller but lots of them _can_ , and "it's risky!" seems like a poor reason to avoid working toward a control plane.

<comment><USER3> You have to read the previous post (linked by "Yesterday's Post" at the start of the article) and it makes more sense.

In a system with as many issues as the one described there, a controller is probably not the best use of time - just increasing minimums at peak times would work fine, and there are other problems that are probably more important.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great!

None of this applies getting your system set up and running (the classic MVP).

But eventually, if all goes well, you want to scale. Then the choice of "take the harder path" really pays off.

The trick is to have at least a person or two on the team when you're implementing the MVP who are thinking about the long term architectural issues. You don't want to do a complete reimplementation.</comment>


Execution triumphs ideas, but by how much? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@vigniro/execution-triumphs-ideas-but-by-how-much-be279b948577

<comment><AUTHOR> While tech leaders like Ben Horowitz, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Sam Altman, and more phrase their general message to founders in their own terms, a lot of it actually boils down to the same thing; Thinking for yourself.

Are we underestimating the effort behind the creation of great ideas?

Let me know what you think.</comment>


Official Statement: Go Daddy Does Not Support PIPA - <AUTHOR> http://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-view.aspx?news_item_id=379

<comment><USER2> Is this link not working only for me?

<comment><USER3> It works perfectly for me, it goes to an empty page.</comment></comment>


Why you should try attention getting publicity stunts - <AUTHOR> http://openforum.com/articles/why-you-should-try-attention-getting-publicity-stunts?extlink=em-openf-sbdaily

<comment><USER2> Hey, it works for everything else...e.g. Kim Kardashian. Why not Startups?</comment>


Phobia about holes is not officially recognized, but UK scientists look into it - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/phobia-about-holes-is-not-officially-recognized-but-uk-scientists-look-into-it/2012/10/01/c1797a8c-dff0-11e1-a421-8bf0f0e5aa11_story.html

<comment><USER2> I actually have a phobia of lotus plants. It was bad enough that I couldn't look at that picture without almost passing out. (It would have been nice if you'd put a warning in the title).

I can't really explain why it has such an affect on me, but it's pretty nice to know I'm not alone.

</comment><comment><USER3> Have to admit I'm not exactly _afraid_... but kinda spooked out by those dried lotus seedpods

<comment><USER4> Same here. I don't have an issue with holes in general but those lotus seedpod things are kind of creepy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Maybe because scary things crawl out of dark holes? Because you can drop things into holes & not get them out? Because you can hurt your little finger putting it into holes where it doesn't belong? How about Flash Gordon's Trial by Treebeast?</comment>


Mr. Robot - <AUTHOR> http://www.whoismrrobot.com/ <comment><USER2> I just saw the pilot yesterday, and aside from having a really cool storyline, the tech/lingo is surprisingly accurate. I don't want to hype it too much based off 1 episode, but the whole show feels very Dexter-esque.

<comment><USER3> The trailer turned me off with the usual "BEEP BEEP COMPUTER THINGS ARE HAPPENING" foley work. Do they avoid that in the episode?

<comment><USER2> You would never know it from the trailer, but honestly aside from a short convo about Gnome/KDE it's spot on. They got tor, DDOS, networking, linux, file systems, etc all correct I couldn't believe what I was watching.

I don't know if they hired good consultants, or if the TV networks are finally beginning to quit watering down the tech in their shows.

On top of that, the guy they have playing the main character is a totally convincing (yet definitely dramatized) portrayal of a security engineer/hacktivist living in the Lower East Side.

<comment><USER4> I didn't get what the 'astu' command he used several times was for.

Also as was pointed out to me by another viewer - not sure how the main character expected to hide that .dat file by chmodding it to his user id. The file was held in root's HOME folder, so anything in there should be accessible only to root anyway, and root is going to be able to see any file from any user.

But I'm being a pedant and I thought it was an excellent pilot that I hope they continue. It should be compulsory viewing for the screenwriters of CSI: Cyber.

<comment><USER5> Lol, here I am googling 'astu' as well after watching the show.

But @MarcScott - remember, you can read a file in a directory that you dont have +r on if you know the filename, as long as you have +x to change into that dir ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> For the confused: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug4fRXGyIak](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug4fRXGyIak)

<comment><USER7> Thanks! I had no idea what that was supposed to be.

Unfortunately I can't watch the full episode though, because "this content is currently unavailable", presumably because it's a non-US IP. Not sure when they'll learn, I don't want to wait for a crappy german synchronisation that kills 90% of the jokes and I especially don't want to wait 6 month for it.

Welp, torrent it is I guess. Just don't accuse me of stealing.

<comment><USER8> While deployed I used VPN service to access Netflix and other US IP only sites.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Irony isn't lost on those of us who are not USian (that's 95.5% of the world's population, last I checked), some of whom may feel compelled to take their first steps into the world of hacking (monkeying around with IP anonymizers, proxies, VPNs and all that, or going straight for the inevitable torrent) just to be able to watch that pilot episode. Way to go, dudes!

<comment><USER10> I am not a lawyer. But, if a program is not distributed in your part of the world officially, it's not supposed to be illegal to download from different source. After all, the company is not losing any business. So, why not torrent it?

<comment><USER11> I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm pretty sure that copyright laws don't lose their effect just because something hasn't been released (yet) in your country.

If that were the case, then all pre-release bootleg copies would be legal.

<comment><USER12> There are copyright reciprocity agreements between specific sets of nations, but there is no universal copyright law.

<comment><USER11> Yes, that's why I referred to 'laws' (plural).

Have you come across any copyright law (in any country) where copyright does not apply just because the item has not been released in that country?

<comment><USER12> Well, there are 193 member nations in the UN, and 188 of them are members of the World Intellectual Property Organization, so I guess that means there are 5 countries that do not have any laws against violating intellectual property rights from other countries. Which ones? I don't know. I'm too lazy to compare the lists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> TV producers attempt to instill fear in order to hook viewers into watching it.

So they are using a TV show to make money to try to climb the ladder to the 1% if they aren't already there themselves.

<frauds>

<comment><USER14> We're all <frauds>. The show has a realistic depiction of social anxiety but an unrealistic depiction of heroism. There's darkness in all of us.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> "I see you're running GNOME" snippet: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQM5fU7V-MM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQM5fU7V-MM)

<comment><USER4> This was the only "tech" part that I found cringe-worthy. I was able to watch the rest of the show without jumping out of my seat and shouting "That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works."

<comment><USER16> It's kind of weird, because people I know would have opinions about KDE vs Gnome and they didn't say anything exactly wrong, but I've never heard anyone ever talk about it like that.

<comment><USER2> I agree, they should have done Distros, i.e. "Oh, you run Debian? I'm a SUSE guy myself". I have never once talked to anyone about the window manager nor would I comment on it.

<comment><USER15> Now that would be unrealistic.

You can't really guess which distro someone is using just by glancing over their screen for a second.

You can tell which DE they are using but not distro, except in the case of Unity and Pantheon, those are mostly used with their respective distros. People don't usually have output of cat /etc/os-release on the screen easily visible for people passing by to see.

There isn't that much visible difference between distros if you aren't working as root.

<comment><USER17> "Oh, you run Gnome, is that Debian? I'm a SUSE guy myself"

that would be something credible, but hey they are getting really close!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Very cool storyline but the excessive voice-over can be a little grating. Fight club meets Hackers meets Men in Black

Here is the full episode (without the hoops) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpxvvnWvffM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpxvvnWvffM)

<comment><USER4> Fight Club is spot on. If the Mr Robot doesn't turn out to be a facet of the protagonists mind, I'll be very surprised.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> interestingly, when the psuedo 'irc' connection is created, the user's ip address looks to be intended to be the source address..but because someone forgot that there's an akamai proxy in the middle (and didn't adjust for X-Forwarded-For or whatever), the ip you actually get is the akamai ip (its also in the source)

       <script>
        var USER_IP = '184.108.40.206';

Was curious since the ip appeared real, but wasn't mine.

</comment><comment><USER20> I like that the kind of text used in this... marketing website (?) could easily fall under the new definitions of terror proposed by e.g. US and UK governments...

</comment><comment><USER21> And a fun little easter egg; the undocumented "420" command.

</comment><comment><USER10> I found the IP addresses shown in that episode during the DDoS attack on evil corp. somewhat entertaining - 155.334.31.97, 155.264.991.875, 155.644.22.673,......

For a split second, I thought, I learned them wrong...

<comment><USER22> Hollywood and the like early on learned to not put real phone numbers into movies etc. Putting in non-functional ip addresses are just as sensible, especially when some teen can point a DDOS at it in a second.

<comment> Bob-Thomas_III RFC 5737 - IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation [1] would be a good fit for use in TV series and movies.

[1]: [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5737](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5737)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The anarchy stuff is tiring though. Again with the whole evil corp stuff and framing the top guy. Why?

Just because the girl was removed from the meeting isn't reason enough to start attacking a company.

<comment><USER24> I bet you are fun to watch movies with.

<comment><USER23> Yes, I am.

I also like capitalism and free enterprise and find it frustrating that the show went from somewhat qualified vigilantism of actual bad guys to a downright idiotic "free the world" scenario by taking down a corporation employing lots of innocent people because a women was bad in a meeting.

<comment><USER24> I doubt you really think our protagonist decided to frame the CTO of Evil Corp because his girl friend was "bad in a meeting." That was the CTO's supposed reason for getting her removed from the meeting. Our hacker was on the edge anyway and made the decision to fight Evil Corp because he saw what an a-hole the CTO really was. The Evil Corp CTO was rude, clearly sexist and thew his weight around as a way to demonstrate his dominance. These were the decision factors for this anti-social hacker. Besides, just because a corporation employs lots of people does not mean they shouldn't be punished for doing great wrong, even to the point of dissolving said company. This is a TV show anyway.

<comment><USER25> How as he clearly sexist? The girl didn't know anything and was speaking out of her ass and wasting everybody's time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Best line from the pilot, "I'm an executive. I mean why am I even running Linux?"

</comment><comment><USER26> Full pilot episode for those interested: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpxvvnWvffM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpxvvnWvffM)

<comment><USER9> Correction: for a small minority of those potentially interested, see my previous comment. For everyone else: welcome to the world of the hacking underdogs :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> "Current Balance 197,455.64 Last Statement Balance 196,955.64 Minimum Payment Due 500"

I think they have it backwards, plus it looks like she lucked out with a zero interest loan.

</comment><comment><USER28> So... did anyone else try to rm -fr /?

</comment><comment><USER29> Cool site, but I'd rather be informed on how to join the 1%, instead of being grouped with the 99% yet again.

<comment><USER14> From a probability standpoint, there is more to gain for you as an individual when you improve the lives of the 99% then to find ways to join the 1%.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Mr. Robot still using init...

<comment><USER27> Like me, he is probably playing cautious before jumping on the systemd train. #butidontwannaupgradetorhel7!!!!

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I registered as "email@example.com".</comment>


Bitcoin 'Is a Better Form of Money Than We Have Right Now,' Pro Trader Says - <AUTHOR> http://www.betabeat.com/2012/04/02/bitcoin-is-a-better-form-of-money-than-we-have-right-now-pro-financial-trader-says/

<comment><USER2> Pro Trader likes to trade bitcoins because he knows how to trade illiquid markets. The civilians who are affectionate towards bitcoin are easy pickings for Pro Trader and his friends. Pro Traders say a lot of things that are not true about the capitalist system despite the fact that they personally benefit from the way the system is currently structured. Pro Trader would not be happy to work at a bank in the 1840's, in a world where banks indeed printed currency, and failed constantly, and where credit was very hard to come by. The modern system makes Pro Trader rich, but Pro Traders like to complain about it because they are "libertarians."

</comment><comment><USER3> In other news: Fishermen love lakes stocked to the brim with fish.

</comment><comment><USER4> Will bitcoins suffer from a 4 to 8 percent annual inflation due to central banks creating more bitcoins out of thin air? Will inflation be locked at zero?

I don't think the sovreign is interested in losing their little racket of skimming 4 percent off of global transactions through money printing. I truly hope bitcoins succeed, but they will have to slay some big omnipowerful opponents eventually. My choices are to have my money stolen from me in a BOFA bank acct, or preserved in bitcoin. Hmm tough choice.

<comment><USER5> The central bank does not have direct control over the money supply. In any case even, money supply growth is not synonymous with inflation. Only when it is outpacing the productive capacity of the economy to absorb it can increases in the money stock produce inflation. Given the slack in the economy right now, demand driven inflation is near the bottom on our list of worries. Take off the tin foil hat.

<comment><USER4> I agree that inflation is not a problem, I just want a currency where I can place claims on future human labor in, and in 15 or 30 years get the exact same number of claims on future human labor back out. Today and for the last 97 years since we have been off the gold standard, the us dollar is unable to accomodate my wish. If I put in 100 dollars now, in 30 years I will not be able to buy a single pencil with it, even if I put it in an account that accrues interest, after 30 years I would be able to buy two pencils.

Just like how in 1995 gas was 80 cents, now it is four dollars. Inflation at 3 percent per yeiar is a joke, in gas and heating oil it is 10% per year. My only wish is to keep the wealth I earn. Ultimately money is just a contract between two humans, one human can always steal the wealth of the other by fiddling with the numbers.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Exciting things to study(in CS) to break out of plateau? - <AUTHOR> Hey, everybody! I want to ask you for some advice.
I have been learning to code for a few years now, I've learned some programming languages, I've built some cool projects. I know things about Computer Science, but I am far from being a master of my craft.
Now I feel like I hit a plateau. I've got a bunch of things to do and to study, but it's going kinda slow, and feels kinda stale.
So I am looking for new and exciting avenues to exlore, I want to get "in the zone" of rapidly learning new skills and exploring unfamiliar subjects.
Can you suggest some new, cool, interesting things to do and explore? It can be a project or a book or a challenge, or some niche of CS I haven't thought of yet.
What gets you excited? What do you crave to learn? <comment><USER2> Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs.</comment>


Ask HN: Best Practices on creating video for a startup? - <AUTHOR>

It would seem today you must have some sort of a youtube video (vimeo btw, does not allow uploading of 'commercial' videos, many startups may one day find a dead video on their homepage) describing your service or app, so what are the best practices?
Do you just display it as is? Or use illustrations and flying text bubbles all over?
A single narration voice? Or voice actor for each character?
What about background music? Visual effects? Any recommendations on software? I guess windows movie maker won't cut it.
Do you make your video public or hidden? Send fake traffic? You don't want your video out there with 17 views. <comment><USER2> I've made a bunch of videos for Decal[1] - and whilst I'm still on a long learning process I can probably give you a few bits of advice:

1\. For initial marketing/landing videos don't spend too long showing the actual product - don't try and pack in a complete feature demonstration in. You only need to get people just interested enough that they'll try the product out - you can have a longer, more detailed instructional video as part of the initial sign-in/login process (still - you should keep your instructional videos under 5 minutes, preferably 3 minutes if you can).

2\. When I did a landing video that was 3 minutes, average watched was 73% according to Wistia's stats - when I did a landing video that was 60 seconds average watched was 98%

3\. Background music is useful for marketing/landing pages, but not for instructional videos

4\. If you're doing an instructional video, it's good to have pauses in screen movement from time to time - it's hard to process information about what's happening on the screen simultaneously whilst listening to the audio so you need to give the brain some time to catch up (even if the words are describing what's happening on the screen)

5\. ScreenFlow is awesome

6\. You can improve the quality of your voice over without shelling out for an expensive mic by sitting in a closet (compare the V.O quality on the first round of Decal marketing videos I did with this one that's about to be released: <http://iain.wistia.com/m/Ki1dVy> \- NB: still vascillating on the backing track for that one)

7\. If you want to really hammer home a message, put words on the screen that are keywords from the voice over. It's a powerful way to get the message to stick in people's minds.

8\. I've experimented with a "straight to camera" video piece - it's _hard_ to look good. You need a proper lighting setup, otherwise you end up looking like an al-qaeda suicide bomber. That being said, however, having a straight to camera piece seemed to improve people's tolerance for a very rapid product overview.

9\. Start the video with a statement - try to orientate people and give them a context for where they are and what you're trying to achieve. In the case of instructional videos, you can say something like "This video is intended as a fast paced overview of all available features. For more detailed instructions see our support page" or something. For marketing videos start with the key benefit - try to get that out in the first 10 - 15 seconds.

10\. Using Wistia for video hosting is great because you get good stats, a range of embed options including the cool "post roll call to action" which prompts people to click a link when the video finishes and no brand dilution (ie. people don't see youtube ads or get prompted to leave your product and view something else when the video finishes).

11\. Marketing video takes way longer than instructional video to create because of the editing process. The process I go through for Marketing vids is:

\- Write copy first, time yourself speaking it, get it under 1 minute

\- Record a rough draft of you speaking the copy

\- Story board the video - I use index cards or a whiteboard for this - ie. "When I'm saying this, I should see this on the screen"

\- Record and edit the video to the draft V.O - make sure you cut out unnecessary loading times or mouse movements and use transitions and screen zooms to help ease the rapid pace of action on screen and focus people's attention

\- Do the final reading (in the closet or sound proofed room :) and then cut that up, cut out any "smacking" noises or breathing when editing, and place that to the video

\- Now decide on a sound track, try a few options and see what's best. I'm vascillating on my choice of the Mbira for the Decal Mockups launch vid because it's kind of strange and I fear people will spend too long trying to figure out what the hell that music is, and lose focus on the video. Here's another version with (coincidentally) Adrian Holovaty playing a Gypsy Jazz version of "all of me" <http://iain.wistia.com/m/xP1dqp> \- I think that's better (I haven't asked Adrian's permission to use it yet, though :)

For instructional videos my process is slightly different:

\- Just use the product, go through basically the way that I would demo it to someone if I was showing it to them, and record this

\- Then edit the video down to about 3 or 4 minutes - if it's too dense, separate subject matter into separate videos and reference them on a support page

\- Now that you have your "demo framework" simply narrate that - write down your narration, then record this as a draft voice over

\- Now go back and, for each section of narration, record the video for that again, specifically to go with that narration. You'll be more focused and get a better result with less choppy mouse edits

\- Now go sit in the closet again and do the V.O and edit that down to fit the video

I _think_ that's about it. I'm by no means a professional but I've been hacking away at it for a while so hopefully some of this is helpful to you.

1\. <http://www.decalcms.com/>

<comment><USER3> _5\. ScreenFlow is awesome_

Indeed. I generally avoid using my Mac if I can, but Screenflow is amazingly feature-rich. Lots of options for editing audio & video, mixing, effects.

That it also happens to do a good job capturing your screen almost seems incidental. I've used to re-design and edit video created with other tools.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> We needed a single place to post our videos from Hackers & Founders, especially as we launched the Co-op, our take on incubation. (You'll be hearing more about that shortly). So, we decided to eat our own dog food, and use one of the startups we were working with in our incubator: <http://VidCaster.com>.

Within a couple of hours of receiving the DVD from Naval's Hack your Funding process video, it was up and streaming on their service. They also grabbed all the other video content we had on vimeo and transferred it over without any problems. The following week, they streamed 1TB of video on our videos alone. Not bad for a company that had only raised seed funding before that.

They are simply outstanding, and I'm not just saying that because they are in our incubator. Their service really does rock. Clean interface, amazingly responsive founders that have been running their own video businesses for years, and built VidCaster to scratch their own itch.

BTW you can look at all the pitch videos for our startups on <http://hackersandfounders.tv> for our upcoming "Not-a-Demo-Day" this Thursday night. It's powered by VidCaster. And, one of the VidCaster founders shot all the videos for us as well.

</comment><comment><USER5> The best book on video editing, bar none, is Walter Murch's "In the Blink of an Eye" so, get that and read it like 20 times. Then get yourself a copy of FCP and use export for web.

To shoot good video, the choice of camera (at least, prosumer) is not as important as lighting technique, I recommend getting a film production textbook from eBay(they're all pretty good really) and a trip to home depot to buy materials for a green screen, and make yourself a cheap lighting kit. For compositing and effects software, I can't really recommend after effects, but that's what I've used before. (eagerly awaiting an open source JavaScript replacement :( #wildestdreams

That should leave you in good shape. as for actors, yeah, it's worth budgeting for. Some folks can do multiple voices. That's how you can tell the good ones. Plenty of talent in any city though, just go to a local theater show and ask around.

<comment><USER5> Oh, while you're at home depot, get yourself a little cart to serve as a ghetto dolly, and don't forget to buy a tripod. You can fake a good steadycam with these two, but you should always use a tripod. Oh, and add "Guerilla filmmaking" by Robert Rodriguez to the reading list.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> My tip: Don't make it the only info about your service. If you can't describe the service without the video, you are losing customers.

</comment><comment><USER7> Screenflow[1] is fantastic screencasting software. It's incredibly easy to use, and even does simple video and sound editing. I suggest recording a voiceover separately.

1\. <http://www.telestream.net/screen-flow/overview.htm>

<comment><USER3> Yeah, Screenflow is great. I typically record sound and video, but split them and redo the audio once the video is in shape.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This quora thread had a lot of great answers: [http://www.quora.com/What-are- some-good-examples-of-startup-...](http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good- examples-of-startup-product-demo-videos)

</comment><comment><USER9> The way they present it is a bit in your face but this is genuinely good stuff even if you just watch the free videos: <http://www.thevideoboss.com/>

</comment><comment><USER10> Check out <http://grumomedia.com>

He's got some tutorials which cover what I think you're looking for.

</comment><comment><USER11> Look at an existing video you love, or five, and take notes. Make it interactive to beat the 17 views dilemma.

</comment><comment><USER12> Check out <http://explainabl.es></comment>


Programmable blockchains in context: Ethereum's Future - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@ConsenSys/programmable-blockchains-in-context-ethereum-s-future-cd8451eb421e#.czg9jk79h <comment><USER2> This article is way too long and could have said the same thing in a quarter of the space. Roundabout trips through history of IBM and the mainframe intend to lay a foundational understanding but really don't succeed.

Even when it finally gets to blockchains and Ethereum I think we need a more to the point description.

<comment><USER3> exactly, it's unnecessarily long. And it's written in a wannabe-cool language, totally inappropriate for describing the technical concept.

<comment><USER4> Is there some article that better explains the subject matter? I would like to learn more but i dont want to read this article.

<comment><USER5> [https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White- Paper](https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The idea of domain name serving over the internet without any intervention is fascinating, though it would be interesting to see what the societal reaction would be when someone registers childporn.com or assassinationmarket.com (with corresponding content, of course). As soon as mainstream society discovers that this content can't be taken offline, the backlash to the whole system might be severe.

<comment><USER5> good point. wikileaks was a small organization which managed to create an uncensorable system, AFAIK among other things by using a wide net of ISP's relations. one can solve some of these problems based on votes. currently google and ICANN largely defines where the boundaries are (who-is policy of domains, what constitutes trademark, etc.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm curious how the immutability of block chains meshes with the fragility of programming. What happens when a contract on the Ethereum blockchain is found to have a bug? How can it be amended?

<comment><USER8> Simple! When a bug is found, someone (or even everyone) involved with the contract loses their money. It's one of the many downsides to handing control of your cash over to an irreversible computer program.

<comment><USER9> Which part of the current legal system are you afraid of losing?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Given that contracts can call other contracts and, presumably, set up new contracts, I wonder if it's possible to set up self-referential loops of never-ending contracts. Denial of service?

</comment><comment><USER11> Is it possible to run protocols like Bitcoin on top of this?

<comment><USER12> If by Bitcoin you mean a block chain based cryptocurrency, then yes, since Ethereum is already a blockchain based cryptocurrency. If you mean the exact protocol of bitcoin, the answer is also yes (Ethereum is turning complete, so it should be able to do anything minus networking) although in practice it would be inefficient.</comment></comment>


Is Government a Data Wholesaler or Retailer? - <AUTHOR> http://sunlightlabs.com/blog/2009/08/14/wholesalers-vs-retailers/ <comment><USER2> I don't agree. First of all, the analogy with Costco is false. Data is free to copy (esp. govt data which should not be subject to copyright) and very cheap to store and transport. So no it is not at all analogous to crates of toilet paper or tubs of mayonnaise.

Secondly, if we adopt the proposed solution we get a situation very ripe for corruption and rent seeking. What you will get is the government creating data in some bizarre and byzantine format which only one or two companies can decipher, and those companies will sell better organized data at very high prices and in very limited way.

This is already happening now, btw. All laws and published court decisions are supposed to be public knowledge and available for free. But the government does not have an efficient system to publish them. Therefore, two companies (Lexis and Westlaw) publish these on-line and charge people enormous amounts of money so that they can merely find out what the laws of their own country are.

Simialar things are happening in other spheres, where people are paying a lot of money for supposedly public information.

So, no, the government should try to make public information accessible to all citizens. Of course it should also provide data in bulk to anyone that wants it, but that does not release them from their duty to make the information accessible to the average citizen.

<comment><USER3> You're completely missing the point. Like, by a lot, to the point where I'm pretty sure you're trolling, but I'll bite anyways.

 _First of all, the analogy with Costco is false. Data is free to copy (esp. govt data which should not be subject to copyright) and very cheap to store and transport._

Data is only cheap to copy when it's, you know, available to be copied. The whole point of the article is that it currently isn't, but is instead buried in small sites that focus on presentation and analysis. That's the analogy that you seem to have completely missed - the government should act like Costco, making their data available in bulk, but instead, they act like bodegas, giving little snippets.

 _What you will get is the government creating data in some bizarre and byzantine format which only one or two companies can decipher._... _This is already happening now_

You act as if accessible data standards aren't a part of what the open government movement is lobbying for. Why, exactly, do you think someone who wants data to be more commonly available would stop and be happy if it were only made available in some obscure proprietary format?

 _That does not release them from their duty to make the information accessible to the average citizen._

The article specifically says that we're talking about priorities, that the warehouse needs to come first. As for "their duty to make information accessible to the average citizen", isn't it great how often that currently comes with a healthy dose of political spin? I know I trust every little chart the government's handing me.

<comment><USER2> " That's the analogy that you seem to have completely missed - the government should act like Costco, making their data available in bulk, but instead, they act like bodegas, giving little snippets."

Is that really the problem? If that is the problem, one can easily write an app that gathers a lot of these little snippets and assembles them in any way one wants. In fact that would be easier, than writing a bunch of articles and trying to change how the government does things. Or is the problem that the government wants to provide data to the target user directly and somebody else wants to be the middle man.

"You act as if accessible data standards aren't a part of what the open government movement is lobbying for."

That article did not mention anything about accessible data standards. It also did not mention the "open government movement" at all. Hey if there is something called an "open government movement" and it wants accessible data standards more power to them (especially if "accessible" means open and not "accessible for a fee"). But again, I don't know why this is relevant as neither was mentioned by the article.

"Why, exactly, do you think someone who wants data to be more commonly available would stop and be happy if it were only made available in some obscure proprietary format?"

Well, here is an example, that someone might not want data to be more commonly available to everyone, they might want data to be more commonly available to them and not to everyone else so that they can insert themselves as a middle man between the data provider (government) and the data consumer. This is the only way the Costco analogy of the original article actually makes sense.

"The article specifically says that we're talking about priorities, that the warehouse needs to come first."

Yes of course the warehouse needs to come first. And then, if you are good middleman and know how to deal with government you can ensure that nothing of much importance comes later.

I don't know, maybe I am cynical. Maybe these guys really care for transparency and want government to start releasing data in bulk so that as much data as possible gets released as cheaply as possible. So maybe I am wrong.

Then again maybe not. If you wanted open government above all you would not mind much about exactly what format the data came in.

And the fact that you just flamed me and accused me of trolling out of the blue, makes me even more doubtful the motives of the original article's drafter are honest.

<comment><USER3> If you're going to be sensitive about being called a troll, you should stop acting like one.

It would have taken you 30 seconds to click the 'About Us' link at the top of the page and learn that Sunlight Labs is "an open source development team that builds technology to make government more transparent and accountable." Instead, you chose to come up with an insane conspiracy theory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is dead on. It is hard to even play devil's advocate against this.

</comment><comment><USER5> The real problem is government paying lip service to opening up data and giving people access to it. NYC Big Apps is possibly a step in the right direction:

 _Approximately 80 data sets from across 32 City agencies and commissions may be made available on NYC.gov, including such categories as citywide events, property records and sales information, recreational facility directories and restaurant inspection information._

But, we'll know when we see the actual data not some press-release... Also, where is the really useful data including health, and transit? I almost wish there was a federal standard of some sort.</comment>